Talk:Chikungunya

pronounciation?

Can someone note in the article how do we pronounce this disease? --Sav_vas (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Biowarfare/Reference 29 problem

The link to the Center for Non-proliferation in reference 29 doesn't work when I click it through my browser. It currently points to http://cns.miis.edu/cbw/possess.htm which is identical to what I get when I Google the title of the reference but it doesn't work straight from Wiki. I think I'll go through the document myself and expand the BW section using the CNPO article's references as base over the next week or so if there's no other interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.19.228 (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I fixed this, for now. Although CNS is moving domains. I couldn't find the same document on the new domain. --MTHarden (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2903258. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Maralia (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Indian Traditional medicine

Have removed this text again [1]. The source [2] is not really reliable as it contradicts more reliable sources such as this 2013 review [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Since that review doesn't seem (at a quick glance) to say anything at all about traditional Indian medicine, I don't really understand how it can "contradict" any statement at all about what is, or isn't, done in traditional Indian medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The source provided is well below the Wikipedia medical article reliable sources standard in my opinion. a) it is a brief review of the situation in India, a collection of various trials with homeopathic remedies b) there is no consensus given (the conclusion is a paragraph) c) all of the trials are poorly detailed d) most do not appear to meet basic objectivity standards for publication based on the information given (e.g. lack of randomization, lack of standardized outcome assessment, none are placebo controlled, several have alternate treatments but no evidence this is a standard that might substitute for a control group, ....) e) references provided cite the Wikipedia article itself and the remainder are greater than 20 years old (many being from the 1960's and 1970's) f) there are few references given the size of the document. In summary, it is not a document from which conclusion can be drawn based on Wikipedia standards. Ian Furst (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The review states that their is no effective treatment. This user is trying to use this source to claim there is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The removed text begins, "Though there is no satisfactory treatment regimen available, in India, Ayurveda and Siddha medicine like Linga Chenduram, Nilavembu Kudineer are used..." (emphasis added). This sounds to me like a descriptive statement of fact, rather than a claim that they work, and it looks like a pretty direct claim that there is no effective traditional treatment (isn't that what "there is no satisfactory treatment" means to you?). It then goes on to say that they think anti-inflammatories are helpful supportive care, which sounds an awful lot like the claims made about NSAIDs in the ==Treatment== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You left out the bit Especially Nilavembu Kudineer ... as a preventive measure for all ages. That is a big claim which would require an excellent source. This is not it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the claim that it is "effective" as a preventive statement requires a better source. But I do not see why the statement of the plain fact that people do actually use it needs to be removed. The claims of efficacy could have been removed without removing the statement that there is no satisfactory treatment and that people use these (apparently unsatisfactory) treatments anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

People use all sort of stuff. If we had a ref that states how frequently this is used in India we could put it in the society and culture section, but not in the treatment section.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

There first reference is to Wikipedia. This disqualifies it as a reliable source for disease related content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The content whatever i added is directly taken from the pdf link. If you dont find the word "Especially", you could have removed only the word. Sathishmls (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Superficially, the source looks professional and authoritative. However its evidence, such as it is, is only case series. There is no attempt to consider a control group. As such, it is of low quality and should not be used, except perhaps to say that ayurvedic/homoeopathic medicine is used—without any comment on efficacy. I have my suspicions as to why the authors have taken this approach, but I shall not state them here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

beyond that, they provide the case series in the shell of a review - however all the data (I believe) is previously unpublished. This pushes it well into the primary resource category rather than review. Ian Furst (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that treating it like a primary source would be reasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It is at most a source for a description of ayurvedic practices, and is totally unreliable for any assertion about the value or safety of those practices. Deliberate use of Mercury sulfide as a drug? Really? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

First i would like to tell you all that the content i added is only to mention the fact that how in India, government is trying to manage chikungunya using traditional medicine which is exactly given in the pdf link. Sathishmls (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I have added the modified content. Please do not blank the section. Sathishmls (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Most appear to see this as a primary source. It should thus probably not be used at all. I have moved it to the society and culture section as a compromise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The Technical Report [4] is published directly from Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. The treatment is carried out by Central Government Institutions and Government hospitals all over India. I wanted to add this information which is happening Nation-wide. I dont understand why are you blocking this content. Sathishmls (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Till now you were saying this is not a reliable source. Now you have accepted because you know that you cannot block a nation-wide fact. Now you are trying to put the content to some place in the article to make it negligible and unrelated. Please do not do this. Sathishmls (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a very poor quality source. It is not good enough to document any treatment effect. I have compromised with it being used to state that these are used in the "society and culture" section.[5] Have moved it again as what you are trying to add is definately undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I would call this a medical claim "are used to combat pyrexial and post-pyrexial states of Chikungunya" and thus would require a proper medical ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I have nothing added on my own. I have added the same lines given in the document prepared by the Chief Doctors and Directors of India. In the same document, the statistics is also given with details of treatment. There is nothing to discuss about your personal thoughts here. Sathishmls (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not a good source. And what you have added is undue weight. Not everything gets added to Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"prepared by the Chief Doctors and Directors of India" is what is called an argument from authority. It should not and will not convince anyone. This antiquated nonsense may still be used by "practitioners" of Ayurveda, but we need substantial secondary MEDRS sources before we'll treat it seriously. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little late to this party(just got interested from reading the DRN case filing), but I don't see how this source can possibly meet MEDRS. Besides the concerns with methodology that have already been raised in this thread, in the clinical trials it describes, the patients are never confirmed to have Chikungunya at all, they are simply screened based on symptoms and the source describes them as "probable cases of Chikungunya". Surely to know if a treatment works for an ailment, the patients you are treating must actually have that ailment? And perhaps this is due to a language barrier, but it appears that the clinical criteria they were using to diagnose Chikungunya were inconsistent and varied based on locale, not to mention very vague as well. Jonathanfu (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

suggestion - source for inclusion - "Research Journal of Pharmaceutical, Biological and Chemical Sciences (RJPBCS)" a http://www.rjpbcs.com/pdf/2010_1%284%29/%5B7%5D.pdf Page 9 and 10 have information on different forms of medication used. Prodigyhk (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

this looks like a decent source, though I have no idea how to distinguish a good peer-reviewed journal from a bad one. It is only 3 years old. Either way, while I think this could certainly be used to flesh out any missing bits in the article, I don't see a whole lot of relevance to this particular discussion - the section on Ayurveda simply says three things:
(1) that Ayurvedic treatments are being used on Chikungunya patients.
(2) that Ayurvedic medicine has treatments for joint pain and since arthralgias are a symptom of Chikungunya, these treatments may improve the joint pains
(3) there are reports of fake herbal medicines that contain steroids; so it would be best to avoid such and follow conventional treatment by resting.
There is no mention of how well patients actually responded to Ayurvedic treatment. I would agree with the comment below in that the best chance for a mention of Ayurvedic treatment would be as the compromise proposed by Jmh649. Jonathanfu (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sathishmls the compromise suggested by Doc James on 18/Jan sounds fair to me. Move it to the "society and culture" section. When the findings of our Indian doctors are accepted by their peers as an option, it can move to the "Treatment section. Prodigyhk (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The pdf document is a peer reviewed and it is done by the Review Board consists of the Indian Council of Medical Research (The Apex body in India for the Formulation, Coordination and Promotion of Biomedical Research), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (The Authority for setting of standards for drugs, pharmaceuticals and healthcare devices and technologies in India]] and National Institute of Virology (Designated as WHO H5 reference Laboratory for SE Asia region)

Please check WhatamIdoing summary at dispute page, which confirms that the content is well suited for the Treatment section. Sathishmls (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

We still need a better source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Jmh649 Here is a source from the US National Library, which further validates the the edits by User talk:Sathishmls http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3193682/ - there are reports of the successful use of Ayurveda for chikungunya epidemic (identified as Sandhi jwara) in Gujarat and Kerala. Prodigyhk (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I have never seen a journal with an impact factor of zero before [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not tough to explain. This shows self-citation within a walled garden. This should of course be reflected in the impact factor.LeadSongDog come howl! 02:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS regarding referencing requirements for medical content on the English Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Jmh649 Very clearly this disease does not have any known cure. Even the western medicine that you favour are treating it using medicines for arthritis. The traditional medicines that Sathishmls cites are also working in the same way. The edits made by Sathishmls should be allowed and not censored. Especially since Sathishmls has written in a very clear manner without any undue bias towards the traditional Indian medicine. Your attempts at trying to blockSathishmls does not seem right. Request you to review your stance and allow the edits to be included. Prodigyhk (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe try a RfC Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarification?

This sentence seems broken. Does anyone know what it should say?

Long-term symptoms are not completely a recent observation with long-term arthritis observed following an outbreak in 1979.

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to

Long-term symptoms are not an entirely new observation; long-term arthritis was observed following an outbreak in 1979.

I think that's what was meant, can;t access the cited article Cannolis (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I now see that the original did actually make sense but yours is clearer to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Outbreaks

I see we also have an article on Chikungunya outbreaks. I put a link to that article into this one as a "See also" because previously it did not seemed to be linked in this one. I am not an expert on how to work on disease articles, but I added info on reports from another two Caribbean islands to the other article. I see there is some info on Caribbean outbreaks in the Epidemiology section here so I added to that also, but is that a mistake? Should the second article be linked as a hat note in an "Outbreaks" subsection of the Epidemiology section so that more info of that nature is not added to this article? What do you think Doc James? (Also as someone previously suggested, can we have a note on how to pronounce the name?) Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Map of distribution in the US

can be found here. Not sure if it can be uploaded though. Ian Furst (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

We have had a few cases in Massachusetts. It's those who catch it down south and come up here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:7700:3A3:7DF6:E28F:E993:D19B (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

External Links and Further Reading

Hello. I expanded the External Links section a bit today. But I've just learned that it's best to exclude ELs which "[can] be integrated into the Wikipedia article" as it says in #3 of ELYES. Two of those links (NPR and Reuters) might meet that criteria. I'd like to try to incorporate information from those sources into the article and make those links citations instead. Meanwhile, I've moved those links to Further Reading for now. Hope that's ok, and hope it helps. :) Msannakoval (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Why does the intro paras focus on "US" ??

. . .

Sigh.

Why are the introductory paragraphs focusing on the "US" ?

This is a global enyclopedia, and should not be US-centric, unless the article is actually about something that mostly concerns the US.

According to WHO, the virus is hitting other parts of the world much harder than the United States. http://www.who.int/denguecontrol/arbo-viral/other_arboviral_chikungunya/en/

Avaiki (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

. . .

"No one cares"?

In the Celebrities section, it states that "Lindsay Lohan was hospitalized for contracting Chikungunya. Most people filed this news under: 'No one cares.' " While I may share the sentiment, it seems a bit counterproductive to the wiki to include what appears to be a statement of opinion not backed by references to sources, statistics, or evidence. I recommend the bold statement's removal, and it may help to include specific dates and locations. 71.246.41.50 (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Review

NEJM doi:10.1056/NEJMra1406035 JFW | T@lk 10:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Move Outbreak list?

Can we move the outbreak list to the outbreaks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chikungunya_outbreaks page? Right now the article has a very unwieldy epidemiology section.

Mjbailey (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes this article should have an overview. Specific cases IMO should be in the subpage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds highly reasonable to me. juanTamad 03:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtamad (talk • contribs)

Lancet ID

The virus doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30385-1 JFW | T@lk 14:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup - storing some info here

Hi all, I'm doing some updating on this article -- Chikungunya has hit the big time since some of this material was written. I'm pulling a bit of info out of the article that I don't see in more recent sources and stashing it here for a moment. If I find it in other more recent sources I'll add it back:

Stashing info here
These initial symptoms last around a week, after which there is a "convalescent stage" where symptoms improve for around ten days and the virus cannot be detected in the blood. References

Ajpolino (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Epidemiology ENPH 450

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Calebboudreau.

— Assignment last updated by Calebboudreau (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)